Author: telegraph

Energy For The Common Good

Posted on June 18, 2018

Aristotle famously contrasted two types of knowledge: “techne” (technical know-how) and “phronesis” (practical wisdom). Scientists and engineers have offered the techne to move rapidly from fossil fuels to zero-carbon energy; now we need the phronesis to redirect our politics and economies accordingly.

The climate crisis we now face is a reflection of a broader crisis: a global confusion of means and ends. We continue to use fossil fuels because we can (means), not because they are good for us (ends).

This confusion is why Pope Francis and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew are spurring us to think deeply about what is truly good for humanity, and how to attain it. Earlier this month, the pope and patriarch each convened business, scientific, and academic leaders, in Rome and Athens, respectively, to hasten the transition from fossil fuels to safe renewable energy.

In most of the world today, the purposes of politics, economics, and technology have been debased. Politics is regarded as a no-holds-barred fight for power, economics as a ruthless scramble for wealth, and technology as the magic elixir for more economic growth. In truth, according to Francis and Bartholomew, we need politics, economics, and technology to serve a far greater purpose than power, wealth, or economic growth. We need them to promote human wellbeing today and for future generations.

America may be the most confused of all. The United States today is rich beyond imagining, with median household income and gross domestic product per capita each equal to nearly $60,000. The US could have it all. Instead, what it has is widening income inequality, falling life expectancy, a rising suicide rate, and epidemics of obesity, opioid overdoses, school shootings, depressive disorders, and other grave ills. The US incurred $300 billion in losses from climate-related disasters last year, including three massive hurricanes – the frequency and intensity of which has risen, owing to fossil-fuel dependence. The US has vast power, wealth, and growth, and yet diminished wellbeing.

The US economy and politics are in the hands of corporate lobbies, including Big Oil. Resources are relentlessly allocated to developing more oil and gas fields not because they are good for America or the world, but because the shareholders and managers of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Conoco Philipps, and others demand it. Trump and his minions work daily to undermine global agreements and domestic regulations that have been put in place to accelerate the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Yes, we can produce more oil, coal, and gas. But for what? Not for our safety: the hazards of global warming are already upon us. Not because we lack alternatives: the US has ample wind, solar, hydro, and other sources of primary energy that don’t cause global warming. The US economy, alas, is an out-of-control juggernaut, chasing oil wealth and jeopardizing our very survival.

Of course the US is not alone in the mad pursuit of wealth over wellbeing. The same get-rich-quick confusion of means and ends is causing Argentina, host of the G-20 Summit later this year, to pursue fracking of natural gas, with all the associated climate and environmental risks, instead of tapping its bounteous potential in wind, solar, and hydro power. The same corruption of purpose is causing the Canadian government to guarantee a new pipeline to export output from its polluting and expensive oil sands to Asia, while under-investing in Canada’s vast renewable energy sources.

In his meeting with the CEOs of major oil and gas companies, Francis told them, “Our desire to ensure energy for all must not lead to the undesired effect of a spiral of extreme climate changes due to a catastrophic rise in global temperatures, harsher environments, and increased levels of poverty.” He noted that the oil companies are engaged in “the continued search for new fossil fuel reserves, whereas the Paris Agreement clearly urged keeping most fossil fuels underground.” And he reminded the executives that, “Civilization requires energy, but energy use must not destroy civilization!”

Francis underscored the moral dimension of the problem:

“The transition to accessible and clean energy is a duty that we owe toward millions of our brothers and sisters around the world, poorer countries and generations yet to come. Decisive progress on this path cannot be made without an increased awareness that all of us are part of one human family, united by bonds of fraternity and solidarity. Only by thinking and acting with constant concern for this underlying unity that overrides all differences, only by cultivating a sense of universal intergenerational solidarity, can we set out really and resolutely on the road ahead.”

As Francis was meeting the CEOs in Rome last week, Bartholomew was similarly convening leaders of scientific institutions, UN agencies, and major faiths in Athens and the Peloponnese, to chart a path to environmental safety. Bartholomew also underscored the fundamental moral concern. “The identity of every society and measure of every culture are not judged by the degree of technological development, economic growth or public infrastructure,” he said. “Our civil life and civilization are defined and judged primarily by our respect for the dignity of humanity and integrity of nature.”

The 300 million faithful of the Eastern churches led by the Ecumenical Patriarch are in lands facing extreme dangers from global warming: intense heat waves, rising sea levels, and increasingly severe droughts. The Mediterranean region is already beset by environmental distress and forced migration from conflict zones. Unchecked climate change – which has already contributed to conflict – would spell disaster for the region.

Bartholomew’s conference opened at the Acropolis, the very heart of ancient Athens, where 2,300 years ago Aristotle defined ethics and politics as the quest for wellbeing. The political community, wrote Aristotle, should aim “at the highest good,” to be achieved by cultivating the virtues of the citizenry.

Aristotle famously contrasted two types of knowledge: techne(technical know-how) and phronesis (practical wisdom). Scientists and engineers have given us the technical knowledge to move rapidly from fossil fuels to zero-carbon energy. Francis and Bartholomew urge us to find the phronesis, the practical wisdom, to redirect our politics and economies toward the common good.

An Interview With Nina Turner

Posted on June 15, 2018

One of the principal projects that emerged from Bernie Sanders’s 2016 presidential campaign was Our Revolution. Since its founding in 2016, OR has organized hundreds of local and statewide groups, endorsed scores of candidates in political races around the country, and supported a wide range of progressive campaigns. The organization could also provide key infrastructure for a Sanders 2020 run for president.

Jacobin spoke to OR President Nina Turner recently. In a wide-ranging interview, she discussed OR’s relationship with the Democratic Party, recent criticism the organization has faced, the meaning of “democratic socialism,” and the urgency of immigration reform.

How does Our Revolution’s political and economic vision differ from that of the Democratic Party establishment?
I can’t answer for them, but I can tell you that the mission of Our Revolution is to create a system in this country that is geared toward helping people live out their greatness. We continue to push that either through electing candidates or through issues — for example, the $15 minimum wage, and certainly Medicare For All, fit that vision for us. We need a living wage, people need tangible things in their lives to help them get closer to that and solving the medical crisis that we have in this country will go a long way.

We need to make sure we have policymakers who understand that men and women should be paid equally for the work that they do; that this [public] education system we have needs to be shored up; that we have to invest our tax dollars to ensure that a child will not be discriminated against or treated differently because of the zip code they live in. All these things are part of an economic package to lift folks in this country. Our Revolution is supporting candidates who are committed to pushing for just that.

The Democratic Party establishment doesn’t necessarily share that vision. What do you think it stands for right now?
At times, when people just look at the horse race, it’s “who wins.” We have two political parties in this country that just care whether their man or their woman wins, without regard for the types of policy positions they take or what they will stand up for. As for Our Revolution, any old blue just won’t do. We need people with a certain type of commitment, so that when they get these seats they will put people power towards that commitment.

If the only concern is that a Democrat wins over a Republican, without concern for what the core values are of the person who’s running under the Democratic banner, then people will get more of the same. They won’t get change.

We can use California as an example. In California, Democrats control every statewide office, they control the legislature — yet we can’t get Medicare for All passed. The nurses [union is] pushing to get this passed, along with other groups, but we can’t get it passed. That’s not a state controlled by Republicans, it’s a state that’s controlled by Democrats.

Or let’s take New York. In terms of voter access and voter rights, one of the worst states for voter rights in the country. Controlled by Democrats, but we can’t even get the legislature and the Governor and others to move policy that will create an environment where all voters matter.

So, if the calculus for the Democratic Party is only to have Democrats elected, without regard for what they stand for and what they’re going to fight for, then that’s a problem.

In 2016 we passed the most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party. Now, what does that mean in 2018? We patted each other on the back, we were happy, we used it as a talking point — hell, I even used it as a talking point. OK, now what does that mean? Does that platform line up with how people are running? Once they win the seat, what are they doing?

Is Our Revolution trying to get mainstream Democrats to concede political demands from the Left, or is it trying to change the face of the party entirely?
Part of our mission is to transform the Democratic Party. So, we’re running and supporting candidates who believe in the pillars of justice that we believe in. And if there’s somebody who’s been part of the establishment and they see the light, that’s fine too.

But the overwhelming majority of the endorsements we make on the candidate side come from our local groups. We have almost 600 groups in 49 states in this country. After less than two years, that is really a big deal. We’re in about seven countries, and our members include about half a million people across this country and internationally.

Does Our Revolution have a game plan if the Democratic Party doesn’t change?
Our plan is to transform the Democratic Party; our plan is to run and elect progressive candidates; our plan is to make sure we continue to build local groups. Groups really are at the center of our universe.

We don’t see everything from an electoral lens, as some organizations do. We see the bulk of our work through an organizing lens. That’s the harder work, but we believe that if we can get people vested and engaged in the process, that over time sheer people power is going to force those who have the power to change.

It is a heavier lift, it’s a longer lift. But let me give you a very real-world example. We can use Senator [Bernie] Sanders’s Medicare-for-All bill. When he first introduced it, nobody would touch it with a ten-foot pole. But now, all of a sudden, he’s got sixteen of his closest friends in the Senate standing by his side when he introduced that bill.

That didn’t happen because people saw the light and said, “Oh yeah, Medicare for All is the thing.” It happened because the American people are demanding that. That is why Our Revolution is committed to building these groups and giving voice to the people: because they are the force that will push the political class to where they need to be.

It sounds like you’re saying that realignment of the Democratic Party is the primary goal right now. What does Our Revolution think about running independent or third-party candidates?
No, that’s not our primary goal. We have three goals that we adhere to. Think about it as a triangle. Our groups are in the center of that triangle. The equal sides are: candidates — we need to run candidates to get the power, so we can get these progressive things passed. Then we have issues, like the Fight for $15 and Medicare for All. And then we have transforming the party. All of those things are of equal value to us.

The overwhelming majority of the candidates we endorse come from our groups. We’ve had groups nominate Green Party members, we’ve had groups nominate independents, and we at national have endorsed those candidates. So, we don’t just look at candidates and say, “Oh you’re a Democrat, you get the endorsement,” or “Oh you’re not a Democrat, you don’t.” Our groups are the leaders in that.

What do you think accounts for the problems Bernie had attracting black electoral support in 2016, and what’s the way forward in addressing this issue?
The Senator was a first-time presidential candidate from Vermont. Newsflash: Vermont is not that ethnically diverse. He was working with what he had. Running for the first time, he didn’t necessarily have relationships with other communities in a deeper way.

Fast forward to 2018. The recent Harvard Harris poll that shows the Senator polling very high in the African-American community. Because he hasn’t stopped in his mission — running for president was the vehicle he was using to continue to push the agenda that he’s always pushed. Now, a greater number of people in communities of color, especially African-American communities, get a chance to see what the Senator was talking about and fighting for in 2016.

Politico recently published a critical story claiming that Our Revolution is disorganized and has failed to channel the momentum of the Bernie campaign. Can you speak a little bit to those charges?
They’re absolutely not true. Our Revolution has seen enormous growth. Again, people need to look at us through the lens of our mission, not through the lens of what they want to propagate. Since I took over — it’ll be a year for me in July — we are up to almost six hundred groups. That happened under my leadership. We have increased our recurring donors under my leadership. We’ve gone deeper, not just in growing our groups but in providing the tools that our groups need to sustain their work.

We have hundreds of candidates across this country who want our endorsement through our groups. That has not stopped, and it will continue. Why? Because Our Revolution has the Good Housekeeping seal for progressives. People want to be part of this movement. That article was more than unfortunate, it just was flat-out untrue. Our Revolution is growing in every way possible.

Another aspect of the Politico story was the revelation of anti-immigration comments made by a former Our Revolution staff member. Do you have anything to say about the substance of her comments, the idea that Latino immigration hurts native-born black communities?
Her comments were wrong. Our Revolution has had and continues to have a strong commitment to immigration reform and DACA. If you were to line up all of our pillar issues, the efforts we’ve given in terms of fighting for immigration reform and DACA is second only to Medicare for All.

We supported California’s SB54, the California Values Act, passing the first ever sanctuary-state legislation in the country; we’ve repeatedly pushed for passage of a clean DREAM Act; we’ve organized local-level support for our groups, fighting back on xenophobic and anti-immigrant legislation in their communities; we’ve organized on the national level through the Our Dream campaign, where we helped to organize a coalition of progressive groups to organize rallies and actions across the country. We’ve made thousands of calls, we’ve emailed 23 million people, and texted 100,000 people seventy different times, all around immigration issues on the national, state, city, and local level.

So you don’t believe that immigration from Latin America has a negative impact on native-born working-class communities.
No, I don’t agree with that.

Can you speak a little bit about the notion that the problem, regarding immigration and many other issues, is that there’s not enough to go around?
In this country, we have to deal with immigration reform and we need to think about immigration more broadly than just immigrants from Mexico and Central America. There are immigrants from Africa who are also being unfairly targeted by ICE, as well as DACA recipients who were born in Asia or the Middle East. Both parties have decided to play political football with this. We need to make sure that we secure the future of our DACA recipients, but also their families — because you can’t just deal with DACA and not deal with the millions of other immigrants in this country who need a way to be able to become citizens of this country.

We have to deal with the economic challenges we have in our communities, and a lot of times when people are suffering, or when people feel like they’re not getting their needs met, it’s human nature to want to blame somebody. And when you have leaders in office like President Trump, who puts gasoline on that kind of stuff, then the fear-mongering continues.

We cannot continue to pit one population of people, one group of people, against another to solve problems of income and wealth inequality. We can’t pit one group of people against another to solve problems of our justice system. We have to come together.

Stephen Covey put it best: “Seek first to understand and then to be understood.” We have to understand where each other is coming from to fix these problems. And Our Revolution will continue — nothing has changed. That article was totally wrong. We will continue our work on immigration reform and justice.

Our Revolution came out of the Bernie Sanders campaign, who considers himself a democratic socialist. What does that term mean to you?
Our Revolution was certainly inspired by the senator. The board has never sat down and said, “Our organization is a democratic socialist organization.” We are an organization that is trying to change the political dynamics in this country, to bend them to the will of everyday people, and we do that through the electoral process, through organizing. You’ve heard me say that a thousand times.

In terms of my own philosophy about democratic socialism, if democratic socialism means Medicare for All, if it means making sure that we reform the criminal justice system; if it means that a mother doesn’t have to cry herself to sleep at night knowing that her son was born with a congenital heart problem and it’s hard for her to get him health care; if it means making sure that people have a living wage in this country — if that’s what it means to be a democratic socialist, then I am one.

Okay, you had to know this question was coming: do you think Bernie Sanders will run for president in 2020? If so, what kind of effect would that have on American politics the second time around?
I hope the Senator does run again in 2020. He made his mark. He didn’t win that primary, but he won something far greater: he shook the foundations of our politics in this country forever. Our Revolution may or may not have existed, organizations like Indivisible and all the other people who just found their voice — I’m not saying they only found it because of Senator Sanders, but he did dare people to dream a bigger dream, and to see themselves at the center of this a new kind of politics.

He said the only way things are going to change is if millions and millions of people come together and demand that change. People hadn’t heard a politician or an elected official say those kinds of words to them in a very long time.

Some of this bubbling up certainly came because Mr Trump was elected president. But to sustain a progressive movement, it’s not just about what we’re against, it’s about what we are for. And Our Revolution is the personification of what we are for in this country.

The foundation is set. He hasn’t missed a beat in terms of what we’re fighting for. So, to run for president is to take this whole engagement — this whole people-power notion, the notion that everyday people can make a difference in the body politic — he’s gonna take that whole thing to the next level.

He upset the entire political dynamic in 2016 and that’s why so many people now are running. I’m in Oklahoma City right now. Oklahoma is a red state, and I’m sitting across the table with progressives who are volunteering their time; they work full-time jobs but are volunteering hundreds of hours to talk to candidates, to push for issues. Believe it or not, Oklahoma has a long history with socialism. You wouldn’t know that now, but it did. And I’m sitting and talking to people who really want to go back to their roots.

The excitement that’s going to be there about having [Senator Sanders] as the president of the United States is only going to increase. But the movement is not only about that. It’s really about having the force and the will of the people to change the dynamics of politics, to change the lives of everyday people. That was his mission in 2016; I suspect that that will be his mission again in 2020 if he decides to run. So, I do hope that he runs again.

The Military-Industrial Drain

Posted on June 15, 2018

President Dwight D. Eisenhower once noted, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

Eisenhower was a Republican and a former general who helped win World War II for the allies, yet he understood America’s true priorities. But Washington–and especially Trump–have lost sight of these basic tradeoffs.

Since 2001, the Pentagon budget has soared from $456 billion–in today’s dollars–to $700 billion, including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other national security expenses. All told, when you include spending on the military and war, veterans’ benefits, and homeland security, military-related spending now eats up 67 percent of all federal  discretionary spending.

According to the 2018 Military Balance report by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, the United States already spends more on the military than the next 10 nations combined. Even if the Pentagon budget were cut in half, the United States would still outspend China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea combined.

The military budget has become bloated with waste and abuse. According to the Pentagon’s own internal figures, the department could save at least $125 billion by reducing operational overhead.

Out-of-control defense contractors also drive up spending. In the coming years, cost overruns alone are projected to reach an estimated $484 billion. Meanwhile, the CEOs of the top 5 defense firms took home $97.4 million in compensation last year.

Despite all this, some still argue that military spending is necessary to support good-paying jobs and economic growth. Baloney. America would be much better served by a jobs program that invested in things we really need – like modern roads and highways, better school facilities, public parks, water and sewer systems, and clean energy – not weapons systems.

The biggest reason for increases in Pentagon spending is the incredible clout of the military-industrial complex – Eisenhower’s term. Every year, defense contractors spend millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions to keep federal dollars flowing their way. More than 80 percent of top Pentagon officials have worked for the defense industry at some point in their careers, and many will go back to work in the defense industry.

Since taking office, Trump has increased military spending by more than $200 billion. Let’s take a second to look at how else that $200 billion could be spent.  We could, for example:

Offer free public colleges and universities, as proposed by Bernie Sanders.

And fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

And expand broadband Internet access to rural America.

And meet the growing needs for low-income housing, providing safe living conditions for families and the elderly.

And help repair the physical devastation in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria.

Spending more on bombs and military machinery funnels money away from the American people and into wars. It’s time to rein in Pentagon spending and this endless war machine, and demand investment in America.

The Unconstitutional Census Power Grab

Posted on June 8, 2018

The Trump administration’s decision to alter the 2020 Census to ask people if they are American citizens is an unconstitutional power grab that would hurt many disadvantaged Americans. 

The U.S. Constitution calls for “actual enumeration” of the total population for an explicit purpose:  To count the residents – not just citizens, residents – of every state to properly allocate congressional representatives to the states based on population.

Asking whether someone is a citizen could cause some immigrants — not just non-citizens, but also those with family members or close friends who aren’t citizens — not to respond for fear that they or their loved ones would be deported. In the current climate of fear, this isn’t an irrational response.

The result would be a systemic undercounting of immigrant communities – with two grossly unfair results.

First, these communities and the states they’re in would get less federal aide. Census data is used in over 132 programs nationwide to allocate over $675 billion each year.

An undercount would deprive many immigrant communities and their states of the health care, education and assistance they need and are entitled to.

 

 

Second, these communities and the states they’re in would have fewer representatives in Congress. The Census count determines the distribution of congressional seats among states. Under the Constitution, these seats depend on the total number of people residing in the state, not just citizens.

Which is the real reason for this move by the Trump administration. It’s no secret that immigrants with the right to vote tend to vote for Democrats. So undercounting neighborhoods that are heavily Latino or Asian would mean fewer Democratic members of Congress.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross says the citizenship question is necessary in order to better enforce the Voting Rights Act. Baloney. The Trump administration has shown zero interest in the Voting Rights Act. It has even defended voter suppression laws in court.

Demanding Answers And Recognition Of Veterans Exposed To Burn Pits

Posted on June 7, 2018

Over 140,000 servicemembers and veterans have reported exposure to burn pits and toxic airborne chemicals over the past three decades. However, based on deployment numbers, the actual exposure rate is likely over a million. Exposure can produce serious and potentially life-threatening health effects, including neurological disorders, rare forms of cancer, lung diseases, and more—triggering some to call the crisis the ‘Agent Orange’ of the post-9/11 generation.

 

 

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Post 9/11 Veterans Caucus and member of the Congressional Burn Pits Caucus, said: “A few months ago, I got a call from a Vietnam veteran in my district in Hilo, Hawai‘i, who was taking the last breaths of his life. In those final breaths, he wanted to share the struggles that he and so many Vietnam veterans continue to suffer from because of Agent Orange, and their battles with the VA because of the lack of recognition of how Agent Orange impacted, sickened, and took the lives of Vietnam veterans. The last thing this veteran said to me is ‘You can’t help me, but promise me that you will help my fellow veterans from suffering this same consequence.’ That’s why we’re gathered here today.

“Burn pits are the Agent Orange of the post-9/11 generation of veterans. Just over 140,000 veterans have registered in the Burn Pit Registry, but there are far more who are eligible and should be recognized for their exposure. For those of us who deployed to Iraq, others who have deployed to Afghanistan, Kuwait, and other places within the Middle East, burn pits are a part of everyday life. They were not placed in locations far off from where troops were living, breathing, and eating every single day. Service men and women who I served with manned guard towers that were right next to these burn pits. People got sick with the ‘crud,’ that undiagnosable thing that made you hack every single day.

“We’re hearing the effects of this exposure now in the stories today and from our constituents and fellow veterans across the country. A 21-year Army retired veteran in my district from Wai?anae named Chris has received emergency surgery to remove his appendix, a cancerous tumor, and eight inches of his colon since he returned home from multiple deployments in the Middle East. Doctors told him that his cancer was incredibly rare for his age and his fitness level, yet the VA denied his claim to cover him despite the fact that his surgery and illness caused him to be out of work for months. This is one of many stories that we hear of veterans continuing to suffer because of the lack of recognition between their exposure and their illnesses now.

“Congress must take action in the absence of leadership from the VA, and pass the Burn Pits Accountability Act, which I introduced with fellow veteran Congressman Brian Mast, and pass the Family Member Access to Burn Pit Registry Act, introduced by my colleagues Congressmen Ruiz and Castro, to begin to take action and right this wrong. These bills take the first steps to ensure that our country fulfills its debt and promise to our veterans who put their lives on the line in service to this country. I urge our colleagues to support these bills and make it a priority to pass them in Congress.”

Background:

Reps. Tulsi Gabbard and Brian Mast introduced the Burn Pits Accountability Act (H.R. 5671) to evaluate the exposure of U.S. servicemembers and veterans to open burn pits and toxic airborne chemicals by:

  • Requiring the Secretary of Defense to record whether servicemembers have been based or stationed at a location where an open burn pit was used or exposed to toxic airborne chemicals, including any information recorded as part of theAirborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry, in the Periodic Health Assessment (PHAs), Separation History and Physical Examination (SHPEs), and Post-Deployment Health Assessment (PDHAs).
  • Enrolling any servicemember who meets the above criteria in the Airborne Hazards and Open Burn Pit Registry, unless he or she opts-out.
  • Requiring the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to share information relating to the exposure of burn pits and toxic airborne chemicals recorded in PHAs, SHPEs, and PDHAs.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard also joined Reps. Raul Ruiz, M.D. (CA-36) and Joaquin Castro (TX-20) in introducing the Family Member Access to Burn Pit Registry Act to allow family members to register in the burn pits registry on behalf of a deceased servicemember.

Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz Says Trump Administration Neglected Puerto Rico

Posted on June 6, 2018

The mayor of San Juan says that the US hasn’t adequately responded to the disaster that befell Puerto Rico last year, just as President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit the headquarters of the Federal Emergency Management Agency with his wife, Melania, to be briefed on the upcoming hurricane season.

Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz said that the Trump administration — which defended its Puerto Rico response on Tuesday — has largely failed the island, and a recent study by Harvard showing that the death toll on the island is as much as 70 times higher than the government’s official estimate illustrates that fact.

“The fact is that the Trump administration’s bureaucracy and neglect created a climate of inefficiency that cost lives. Their inability to meet our needs and their lack of empathy continues to be responsible for the slow pace of our recovery,” Ms Cruz told Yahoo News, adding, “If they think they did everything they could, they are admitting they did not do enough. They cannot acknowledge the hundreds and thousands dead because those lost souls are irrefutable proof of their inadequate response.”

“The information … is public by nature,” Judge Lauracelis Roques wrote in that order this week. “People still don’t have a clear picture as to how many lives were lost due to a lack of food, medicine, health services or simply because of an ineffective response to an emergency. That’s why it’s urgent to shed light on all components of government preparedness and response.”

In response to a request for comment, a FEMA spokesperson told The Independent that “FEMA will be in Puerto Rico for years to come, supporting Puerto Rico and their recovery goals. Recovery progress continues with the full support of FEMA and the federal government,” but did not otherwise comment on Ms Yulin Cruz’s comments or the death toll estimates.

“Last year’s hurricane season was historic, but so has been the effort by FEMA and our numerous federal, state and local partners,” the spokesperson said. “To date FEMA has provided more than $1.3 billion in support to survivors of Hurricane Maria and obligated more than $2.2 billion of support to Puerto Rico for Public Assistance projects.”

A request for comment sent to the White House was not immediately returned.

Why The Only Answer Is To Break Up The Biggest Wall Street Banks

Posted on June 5, 2018

On Wednesday, Federal bank regulators proposed to allow Wall Street more freedom to make riskier bets with federally-insured bank deposits – such as the money in your checking and savings accounts.

The proposal waters down the so-called “Volcker Rule” (named after former Fed chair Paul Volcker, who proposed it). The Volcker Rule was part of the Dodd-Frank Act, passed after the near meltdown of Wall Street in 2008 in order to prevent future near meltdowns.

The Volcker Rule was itself a watered-down version of the 1930s Glass-Steagall Act, enacted in response to the Great Crash of 1929. Glass-Steagall forced banks to choose between being commercial banks, taking in regular deposits and lending them out, or being investment banks that traded on their own capital.

Glass-Steagall’s key principle was to keep risky assets away from insured deposits. It worked well for more than half century. Then Wall Street saw opportunities to make lots of money by betting on stocks, bonds, and derivatives (bets on bets) – and in 1999 persuaded Bill Clinton and a Republican congress to repeal it.

Nine years later, Wall Street had to be bailed out, and millions of Americans lost their savings, their jobs, and their homes.

Why didn’t America simply reinstate Glass-Steagall after the last financial crisis? Because too much money was at stake. Wall Street was intent on keeping the door open to making bets with commercial deposits. So instead of Glass-Steagall, we got the Volcker Rule – almost 300 pages of regulatory mumbo-jumbo, riddled with exemptions and loopholes.

Now those loopholes and exemptions are about to get even bigger, until they swallow up the Volcker Rule altogether. If the latest proposal goes through, we’ll be nearly back to where we were before the crash of 2008.

Why should banks ever be permitted to use peoples’ bank deposits – insured by the federal government – to place risky bets on the banks’ own behalf?  Bankers say the tougher regulatory standards put them at a disadvantage relative to their overseas competitors.

Baloney. Since the 2008 financial crisis, Europe has been more aggressive than the United States in clamping down on banks headquartered there. Britain is requiring its banks to have higher capital reserves than are so far contemplated in the United States.

The real reason Wall Street has spent huge sums trying to water down the Volcker Rule is that far vaster sums can be made if the Rule is out of the way. If you took the greed out of Wall Street all you’d have left is pavement.

As a result of consolidations brought on by the Wall Street bailout, the biggest banks today are bigger and have more clout than ever. They and their clients know with certainty they will be bailed out if they get into trouble, which gives them a financial advantage over smaller competitors whose capital doesn’t come with such a guarantee. So they’re becoming even more powerful.

The only answer is to break up the giant banks. The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was designed not only to improve economic efficiency by reducing the market power of economic giants like the railroads and oil companies but also to prevent companies from becoming so large that their political power would undermine democracy.

The sad lesson of Dodd-Frank and the Volcker Rule is that Wall Street is too powerful to allow effective regulation of it. America should have learned that lesson in 2008 as the Street brought the rest of the economy – and much of the world – to its knees.

If Trump were a true populist on the side of the people rather than powerful financial interests, he’d lead the way, as did Teddy Roosevelt starting in 1901.

But Trump is a fake populist. After all, he appointed the bank regulators who are now again deregulating Wall Street. Trump would rather stir up public rage against foreigners than address the true abuses of power inside America.

So we may have to wait until we have a true progressive populist president. Or until Wall Street nearly implodes again – robbing millions more of their savings, jobs, and homes. And the public once again demands action.

Nina Turner On What Makes A Person Progressive?

Posted on June 4, 2018

John Iadrola of The Young Turks interviews Senator Turner on the role of big money in politics, amplifying progressive candidates and media, and the future of a people-powered progressive movement. 

 

Voter Turnout Is Everything

Posted on May 30, 2018

The largest political party in America isn’t the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. It’s the Party of Non-Voters.

94 million Americans who were eligible to vote in the 2016 election didn’t vote. That’s a bigger number than the number who voted either for Trump or for Clinton.

All of which means that voter turnout will determine who wins control of Congress next November, and who becomes president in 2020. Turnout is everything.

 

 

This is why it’s so important for you to vote – and urge everyone you know to vote, too.

10 Questions About Healthcare, Answered

Posted on May 23, 2018

As the healthcare debate goes on, misinformation continues to spiral out of control on social media threads and in the mainstream media. By now, we’ve all heard the talking points, and it can be incredibly difficult to differentiate the facts from the hype:

“Don’t other countries with single payer experience really long wait times?”

“Why should we expand Medicare? Don’t a lot of people have negative experiences with it?”

“Why should I pay for someone else’s healthcare?”

Over the course of recent months, we have received hundreds of questions like these from our subscribers, followers, and other members of our community. These are questions from people who want to learn about the issue and how they can make a difference to move this country forward.

1. How does healthcare in the United States compare to other developed countries?

Simply put, we get less and pay more than other countries. The United States spends over twice the average amount per person on healthcare compared to every major industrialized country, and we consistently rank 11th out of 11 countries in comparative studies conducted bi-annually by the Commonwealth Fund. Here are some quick facts:

  • 30 million Americans are uninsured and an additional 39 million are underinsured.
  • 20% of insured Americans report trouble paying medical bills.
  • 36% of Americans are in high-deductible plans with an average deductible of $4,347 or higher.
  • Americans pay excessive prices for medical visits and procedures.
  • The fragmented and patchwork system as compared to other countries necessitates over $200 billion per year in administrative-related activities, or a total of 20-30% of  all US healthcare costs.
  • Despite the out-size spending, the US experiences extremely poor health outcomes.
  • 33% of Americans report going without recommended care, not seeing a doctor when they are sick, or failing to fill a prescription because of costs.
  • The United States has the highest number of preventable deaths under the age of 18 when compared to 18 other industrialized countries.
  • The infant mortality rate is nearly double the average rate of 13 major OECD countries.
  • In 2014, 68% of Americans over the age of 65 were living with two or more chronic conditions, compared to only 33% in the UK.
  • The US has a (uniquely) declining life expectancy age.
  • Latino and Hispanic Americans have much lower levels of insurance coverage.
  • According to a recent report by the Urban League, the health status of black Americans has declined in recent years.
  • The number of uninsured Americans has increased since the rollbacks of the Affordable Care Act were implemented by the Trump Administration.
  • The standard of care Americans receive varies significantly based on their ability to pay, the type of coverage, and by race and gender. This is not true in other similar countries.
  • According to report released on May 8th, this lower quality of care comes as we spend $9,507 per person per year on healthcare.

2. Prescription medication prices are ridiculous. How did we get here?

According to a report by the Senate Finance committee, prescription drug corporations price their drugs according to the price point they want to establish for the next drug in that class. This means that ever-increasing prices have nothing to do with research and development costs or efficacy of the medication, but rather whatever it’s all about whatever the market will bear – and specifically, whatever the market the drug companies create will enable.

There is no regulation of drug prices, and Medicare is prohibited by law from negotiating lower prices. Ironically, hospitals and insurance companies benefit from higher drug prices because those prices “justify” higher rates, and generate more profit as a percentage of those higher rates.

The industry model of unregulated prices, direct to consumer marketing, publicly supported basic research that leads to private drug development, and profit-protecting patents have created escalating prices.

3. The ACA (Obamacare) was supposed to cover everyone and keep costs down but they are much higher than most people predicted they would be. What happened?

The ACA in the best case was not going to achieve universal coverage. Most optimistically, as many as 20 million people would remain uninsured after full implementation. Three-fifths of the increase in coverage came through the expansion of Medicaid, but 23 states have not expanded Medicaid. (The Supreme Court decision upholding the ACA in June, 2012 allowed states to opt out of the expansion).

As to cost, the primary approach was to require individuals to pay more of their share of healthcare costs (“skin in the game” was the popular phrase) so that as “consumers” we would be more price sensitive. But insurance rates were not regulated, so drug companies and hospitals could charge whatever they wanted.

At the same time, the cost of premiums has been subsidized by the federal government for individuals but not for family coverage. This result has been a focus on keeping premiums low by creating narrow networks of providers and high-deductible plans with significant co-pays as employers shift virtually the entire amount of the cost increases onto their workers.

Since utilization of services accounts for only one-quarter of healthcare cost increases, this approach has not lowered costs. In fact, higher prices account for three-fourths of cost increases.

The other mechanisms the ACA established to control costs such as “medical-loss ratio” requiring insurers to spend 80% of their premiums on care, has not limited insurance rate increases.

The individual mandate for people to buy insurance did not create a younger, healthier, less expensive risk pool for insurance companies. Shifting risk from insurance companies to providers and hospitals through “pay for value, not volume” per capita payment reform, and by creating Accountable Care Organizations (ACO’s), has restricted access to care and created closed, narrow networks, but has not lowered costs.

Healthcare Information Technology, especially Electronic Medical Records, has required large capital expenditures and the latest research shows it has cost more than it has saved.

4. The recent tax bill removed the individual mandate from the ACA (Obamacare). How will that affect healthcare in the U.S.? 

For the first time since 2010, the number of uninsured Americans has increased in part due to the mandate’s demise.

However, the impact will be mitigated by how ineffective the mandate has proven to be in controlling costs. It is not the mandate that has motivated people to buy coverage, it is the availability of subsidies for purchasing coverage.

Ironically, if the mandate removal means that fewer healthy people end up buying insurance (or buying it only when they need it), and premiums continue to rise as subsidies go up but those who buy only pay for a smaller share of costs, it will cost more to cover fewer people.

5. It seems like our healthcare system isn’t working well for most Americans. Who actually benefits from the system as it is now?

The top four US health insurance companies made $60 billion in profits between 2009-2015 during the full implementation of the ACA. The health insurance executives take home between $20 million and $66 million per year.

It’s even better for the prescription drug companies, whose profits continue to rise from the $125 billion reached in 2015.

For-profit hospital corporations had achieved record profits until the Trump Administration roll-backs, and in general, hospitals have had higher net income (profits) under the ACA – padding the jobs and pockets of hospital administrators.

Wealthy Americans and the global elite benefit as they can utilize the highly advanced treatments and technologies (often developed with tax dollars) offered in large academic and high-end private medical centers.

In short, the 1% and the healthcare industry are the primary beneficiaries of the present healthcare system– some call it the “medical-industrial complex” – where money is the metric of good medicine.

6. What is a single payer system? And how would my life be different under a single payer healthcare system? 

  • The fundamental difference in experience for people would be replacing health insecurity with the peace of mind that comes from guaranteed healthcare.  A single-payer system would expand and improve the existing Medicare program for everyone in the United States;
  • A single public program would eliminate insurance company premiums, deductibles and co-pays and establish fair and equitable public financing;
  • Patients would have the right to culturally competent care, and complete choice of their healthcare providers;
  • All medically necessary services, including doctor visits, reproductive healthcare, hospitalization, preventive care, long-term care, mental health, dental, vision, medical supplies, prescription drugs and assisted living services needed by aged and disabled people would be provided;
  • It would relieve businesses of the burdens of administrating health benefits, end escalating costs that subsidize insurance company profits, creating resources for wages, pensions, innovation and growth;
  • Medicare for All would establish a single standard of safe, therapeutic care and fund a robust community and public health system to address health disparities, and enable the professional clinical judgment of doctors and nurses to be the basis of healthcare decisions (no more claims denials!).

7. Insurance can feel more like a privilege rather than a right. I pay for it, but I don’t want to have to pay for others too. Why should we expand the system to cover everyone?

  • Everyone with insurance already pays for everybody else since we all pay too much for healthcare.
  • Rather than our health being something we buy and sell as an insurance risk, which can never predict what we will actually need and depends upon huge tax subsidies, we need a health system that will be there when we need it, regardless of ability to pay.
  • We cover everybody because if we do not, we will end up spending more and suffering from poorer health – both individually through unchecked communicable disease, and collectively through worse public health.

8. I’ve heard a lot of horror stories on the media about wait times in countries that have single payer healthcare. Would that be an issue if we implemented it here?

No – Medicare beneficiaries who receive care in the system that we will improve and expand do not have excessive wait times. Most people with commercial insurance wait weeks to see a specialist in the US.

For those who are uninsured or who cannot afford their deductibles have the ultimate wait time: postponed or no care at all.

9. A lot of progressives are talking about a “Medicare for All” system, but not everyone has a good experience on Medicare. If we expanded Medicare to the entire system would we address those issues? And how?

If we listen to the stories of people on Medicare now, we learn that it provides real health security, contains costs much better than other payers, has much lower administrative costs, and enjoys broad public support. Medicare is popular and it works.

Of course, Medicare is not perfect, operating as it does in the system dominated by the commercial insurers, and being privatized itself in Parts B (supplemental coverage), Part C (Medicare Advantage), and the drug benefit under Part D. Those privatized products have created tiers of coverage, and inequitable standards of care and access to providers.

We must improve it by expanding the benefits to include dental and vision and eliminating all the co-pays and deductibles seniors now pay.

10. Covering all Americans sounds like it would cost a lot of money. How would we pay for single payer healthcare?

Improved Medicare for All would:

  • Eliminate health insurance industry profits, marketing costs, and administrative waste;
  • Allow for the negotiation of drug prices and medical fees;
  • Save nearly $500 billion annually. This is enough to cover all of the uninsured and eliminate the out-of-pocket expenses for us that act as barriers to care.

There are many options available on how to finance a Medicare for All system that will save low and middle-income families a significant portion of their annual income.

These include:

  • A tax on the top 5 percent as it creates savings for 95 percent of Americans;
  • Increasing the current Medicare program excise tax on payroll and self-employment income;
  • Instituting a modest tax on unearned income and on speculative financial transactions.

The path forward is not through fake news and mistruths. It is created through a dedication to education and civil discourse. This conversation about healthcare is the first step towards a healthier America.